| QUESTION |
| My co-workers are driving me crazy! Isn't it redundant to say
"postponed temporarily?" In other words, if something is postponed, isn't it already
temporarily not happening? Thank You!
|
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
Steubenville, Ohio  Fri, Jan 7, 2000
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| I suppose you can postpone something indefinitely, but it must surely be redundant to postpone something temporarily. People who use this phrase probably mean that they are postponing for only a brief period of time, but the phrase is still redundant. This is, however, no excuse for violence in the workplace.
|
| QUESTION |
| In the sentence,"The man sitting there is my father",
Is "sitting there" an omitted form of "who is/was sitting there"?
Is it right to say that only when the adjective clause that is in the
form of "being +verb+ing", can the present participle follow the noun
it modifies? Why do most of the grammar books not mention this point?
Thanks a lot.
|
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Hong Kong Fri, Jan 7, 2000
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
You have nicely described what happens in that clause, but it's really a matter of the participle form "sitting" serving as a post-noun modifier. In That deer running across the field has been eating my azalea plants.
"running" is a present participle modifying (adjectivally) the word "deer" and "has been eating" is the verb. A participial phrase like this is, essentially, an adjective clause ("that is running across the field") without the machinery of the clause (the subject-verb relationship, "that is," has been omitted).
|
| QUESTION |
| I understand that the word widow should not be capitalized.
However, I was wondering if it should be capitalized when it precedes the woman's name.
Example: The widow Douglas came to our home for a visit. In this instance should it be t
reated as a title such as pastor? Thank you for your prompt response.
|
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Baton Rouge, Louisiana Mon, Jan 10, 2000
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
I rather imagine that that use of the word "widow" — whether it's capitalized or not — is rather archaic. It sounds like something out of a Hawthorne novel. It no longer seems appropriate to categorize people by their marital status (former or otherwise) in this way, although I suppose we do it with Miss and Mrs. all the time. ![[E-Mail Icon]](../gif/email.gif) However, I have to confess I don't know whether the word can be used this way or not, and my dictionaries don't seem to help. I'll leave an e-mail icon here in case someone else knows. |
| QUESTION |
| I am writing some documentation for our company. One of the
emails we send out instructs our customers to send a VOID check to us so we can set up
direct deposits to their bank.
I say the correct term is void check, my supervisor says it should be voided check.
Since we're using it as an adjective I think it should be void.
What do you say?
|
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Victoria, British Columbia Mon, Jan 10, 2000
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| According to my Merriam-Webster's, "void" has the legal meaning, "of no legal force or effect, null." That's the way we're using it when we refer to a "void check." I don't think "voided" would be wrong, exactly, but "void" is the technically correct term.
|
| QUESTION |
Would you use "was" or "were" in the following sentence?
"A total of 50 birds ---- banded." (Some of us are saying the verb should agree with "total,"
even though it "sounds funny," and some are saying the verb should agree with "birds," which
is plural.)
|
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| St. Paul, Minnesota Mon, Jan 10, 2000
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| In mathematical expressions like this (a majority, a percent, etc.), it will depend on what you're talking about. If the amount reflects something countable, use a plural verb: "A total of fifty birds were banded." Come to think of it, doesn't the word "total" imply countability? Without the "of phrase," though, total becomes singular: "The total was substracted from the earlier sum."
|
| QUESTION |
| I would like your clarification on the plural form of the word
'staff'
as used to define a body of assistants or workers etc. My dictionary
says that the plural can be either 'staffs' or 'staves,' though I presume the latter to refer to
the 'rod, stick or pole' definition of the word. So are more than one staff-members correctly
referred to as 'staff' or 'staffs'? The major concern arises when writing a sentence about the actions of more than one staff-member. For instance,
"Staff have been very productive" sounds the more gramaticially correct when compared to
"Staffs have been very productive". This would also affect the singular form (
ie "...staff has...") I can understand the plural of the stick or rod 'staff' being 'staffs' (and
staves), but for the working kind of 'staff', the word seems to be both its singular and plural
forms, much like the word 'sheep'. Could you please set me straight?
Thanks in advance.
|
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Tue, Jan 11, 2000
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| Forget about "staves" unless you're a shepherd, a cooper, a musician, or a shipbuilder. Generally, we use "staff" as a collective noun, of course, to refer to more than one person. So we say "The staff has not been doing its job." It is quite possible, however, to use this collective noun as a plural when we consider the staff as a group of individuals (which happens quite often): "The staff have arrived at several conclusions about next month's orientation program." or "The staff have been assigned their new offices." Any similarity between staff and sheep is metaphorical rather than semantic.
|
| QUESTION |
| Is it proper to use an ellipsis to allow the reader to think about
part of a sentence? (Can I use it as a longer pause than a comma?) For example: The man
sauntered over, gazed into my eyes, and...asked me where the bathroom was. Both my English teacher and I are stumped.
|
| SOURCE OF QUESTION & DATE OF RESPONSE |
| Fredericksburg, Virginia Tue, Jan 11, 2000
|
| GRAMMAR'S RESPONSE |
| Yes, you can use an ellipsis to show a pause in the narrative flow of a sentence. Frankly, there must be a better way to dictate the rhythm of the actions in that sentence -- like "gazed into my eyes, paused, and asked me where the bathroom was." I'm afraid the ellipsis gives the reader the impression of being manipulated typographically, and some readers might even wonder if something was left out of the sentence. It's better to use words.
|
Previous Grammar Log